Quote:
Originally Posted by TD_Project
I don't mean to try to justify both answers, but both sides of the argument are pretty solid. I can't see this discussion coming to a conclusion.
|
They are, but that's because the two sides of the argument have different valuation systems and ethics systems. One is utilitarian and the other is some pseudo-Kantian/Platonic hybrid. I guess what it would be about is one is about a utilitarian approach towards improving society, where the group takes precedence over the individual and the other is more leaned towards freedom, equality, and individualism. Now the reason you are willing to humor both sides of this argument is because you, like me, see that in different situations both sides of this argument hold some serious weight and strike a chord with something intrinsic to you.
The thing that has to be done is you have to decide what the goals of taxation are, what the goals of government are, and how you think we ought to prescribe policy. It's tough, but on a very basic fundamental level what you have to do is decide if you believe the philosophy is more important or the numbers are more important. It's not one or the other, it's just which one is more important.
The idea behind Progressive tax is that the marginal utility and value derived from dollars at the lower quintiles is much higher than marginal utility and value derived from extra dollars at the higher levels, and it is utilitarian in that sense. The government has
musts and it wants to have a taxation scheme in which it takes an amount of money that each group can afford to lose in order to pay for those
musts. Now this is not an argument about what the
musts are, it's simply stating that they exist. Roads is a prime example of this, and very few people will be willing to dispute that roads are a government must so it's probably the best example.
The idea behind fair tax is that you should pay a flat tax rate or pay based on the amount of unessential goods you consume. That each of us should be equally responsible for the public
musts, and that the burden should not be shared unequally. That it is the responsibility of all of us.